What Does "Conservative" Mean?

[ICantSpellDawg]

"Liberals" in the U.S. tend to defend the "traditional" school system which has been failing so many students recently. Put new ideas in front of them that would diminish the need for crappy teachers or talk about serious reform and they go ballistic. They sound like the reactionaries in those instances - the ones who are clammoring to keep a failed status quo.

Again, it is about what you are trying to conserve and what you are trying to change.

[Husar]

"Liberals" in the U.S. tend to defend the "traditional" school system which has been failing so many students recently. Put new ideas in front of them that would diminish the need for crappy teachers or talk about serious reform and they go ballistic. They sound like the reactionaries in those instances - the ones who are clammoring to keep a failed status quo.

Again, it is about what you are trying to conserve and what you are trying to change.

No, wrong, if they want to keep the status quo they're conservatives, not reactionaries.

Reactionaries would want whatever you had before the status quo.
Conservatives want to keep the status quo.
And progressives want to move on beyond the status quo.

That should be the terminology and I think that's what the opening post was aiming at, that many use the terms completely wrong or associate certain political aims with them when in reality the terms don't have anything to do with any aims because they are completely relative to the status quo.

It's also save to say that it's usually relative to the topic, you can be conservative in this regard and progressive in another, as a whole it would then be best to describe you as a human being or if you want, perhaps as the prevalent notion, like conservative when on 80% of the political topics you have a conservative stance, butt you can still be progressive or reactionary about this or that, although that should be self-explanatory.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Reactionaries would want whatever you had before the status quo.
Conservatives want to keep the status quo.
And progressives want to move on beyond the status quo.

That's not accurate though--you can't say progressives want to move beyond the status quo, the just want to change it in a way that it hasn't been changed before.

It's completely pointless to try to describe someone as any of the three by your definitions anyway--I challenge you to find anyone who fits that description for every political issue.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Europeans and those educated using that intellectual model tend to use the term conservative quite differently than it is used in the United States.

Drawing on the ideas of the enlightenment, this "classic" definition runs roughly as:

Conservative: Acknowledges change is inevitable, but prefers to react in a measured fashion to changes as they occur. All things being equal, an individual with this outlook would be comfortable with the status quo. Often has a fondness for the "good old days" and worries that changes may take the society/culture in question away from "core" values.

Liberal: Not only acknowledges change to be inevitable, but often seeks to encourage change in order to redress perceived inequities discernible within the status quo. An individual with this outlook values freedom of thought and expression. Thus, Eurpeans tend to use "liberal" as in generous or expansive of thought ("Liberal Arts").


The USA has its own meanings for both terms. Our meanings actually center on the role/scope etc. of the Federal government versus the role of the individual, the community, and the states.

USA Conservative: Favors political decision making at the lowest possible level and the minimum possible scope for the Federal Government. Thus, a preference for minimizing regulations, taxes, etc. in order to open up the fullest possible scope for the individual to pursue their own goals.

NOTE: USA "SOCIAL" Conservatives differ from this in that they want minimal taxes and regulations on all things economic, but would prefer a social mindset equivalent to that which dominated the USA between 1890-1915. Some of the more ardent would use sweeping Federal mandates and/or Constitutional ammendments to enact this set of Mores....while at the same time attempting to minimize Federal involvement in economics etc.

USA Liberal: Very few acknowledge being such as the term has become a political liability. However, in the USA, we use this label to indicate an individual who views the Federal Government as the proper tool for addressing social and economic problems. Broad social safety nets and entitlements are a hallmark of this view.

NOTE: Despite leanings in the direction of what Europeans label "socialism," few liberals in the USA would consider themselves socialist as they do not believe in replacing private property with government control -- even though they wish to do exactly that (in the interest of fairness and well-being for the disadvantaged) to a number of major segments of the economy.


Lemur, a very good question. I thank you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, wrong, if they want to keep the status quo they're conservatives, not reactionaries.

Reactionaries would want whatever you had before the status quo.
Conservatives want to keep the status quo.
And progressives want to move on beyond the status quo.

That should be the terminology and I think that's what the opening post was aiming at, that many use the terms completely wrong or associate certain political aims with them when in reality the terms don't have anything to do with any aims because they are completely relative to the status quo.

It's also save to say that it's usually relative to the topic, you can be conservative in this regard and progressive in another, as a whole it would then be best to describe you as a human being or if you want, perhaps as the prevalent notion, like conservative when on 80% of the political topics you have a conservative stance, butt you can still be progressive or reactionary about this or that, although that should be self-explanatory.

Noble sentiment, but it still doesn't solve the problem of "what should we call an individual?". There is no single definition that would apply to an individual and any attempt is rather futile.

What are socialists? Progressives, even though they seek to restore old concepts and ways of governance? Even if they would modify tried and failed government to work, how is that really different from conservative who want the old modified to last as well?

[Husar]

That's not accurate though--you can't say progressives want to move beyond the status quo, the just want to change it in a way that it hasn't been changed before.

Well, if you change it it's not like the status quo anymore.

It's completely pointless to try to describe someone as any of the three by your definitions anyway--I challenge you to find anyone who fits that description for every political issue.

You must have missed the next part of my post.

Noble sentiment, but it still doesn't solve the problem of "what should we call an individual?". There is no single definition that would apply to an individual and any attempt is rather futile.

I tried to say that in my post, you have to come to a conclusion or, quite simply, put different tags on your drawers before putting people into them.

What are socialists? Progressives, even though they seek to restore old concepts and ways of governance? Even if they would modify tried and failed government to work, how is that really different from conservative who want the old modified to last as well?

socialists are usually socialists, whether they are progressive, conservative or reactionary depends entirely on the history and the status quo of the state they live in. They can very well be reactionary.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Labels are important because they help us to understand general ideological concepts, but they don't explain individual ideology. I've never met a true "Conservative", "Socialist" or a "Capitalist" unless they were morons who could only read information, never synthesize it.